Mumbai Court October 1998 Judgments

Fag Precision Bearing Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT413Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The Appeal No. E/491/95-Bom. has been filed by the assessee, E/1036/96-Bom. has been filed by the department.2. In these appeals, the question involved is whether Modvat credit is available in respect of inputs, grinding wheels and honing stick. The larger bench decision rendered in this case of Union Carbide India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Baroda 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 has held that the words in or in relation to contains in Rule 57A has to be read in an expansive manner.Following such case, the Tribunal in the case of Goetze India Ltd., 1997 (96) E.L.T. 323 and in the case of Batliboi & Co., 1998 (97) E.L.T. 307 had held that grinding wheels and parts of grinding machines are eligible for Modvat credit. In this appeal namely E/491/95, the appellant pleads that in respect of the above materials the Modvat credit should be granted. Following the said judgment, we allow the appeal of the assessee namely E/491/95-Bom. and dismiss the department's appeal namely E/1036/96-Bom. As far the appea...

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT858Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The department is common appellant in each of the five appeals i.e.E/382/93, E/385/93, E/387/93, E/389/93 & E/390/93. The assessee had also appealed in appeal E/195/93 of the Collector (Appeals) which is the subject matter of the department's appeal No. E/389/93.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of aerated waters and took pulp based beverages for the manufacture of these products wooden crates were one of the inputs. After glass bottles were notified in the relevant notification in the Rule 87 as inputs for aerated waters till 1-10-1987 and for food based beverages till 11-9-1991. On this date by amendment glass bottles were deleted from the table saying from the date onwards assessees will be eligible for taking credit as inputs. Therefore the assessee manufacturing the beverages as a franchisee of M/s. Parle Exports. In terms of the franchisee agreement it was required of the franchisee to use bottles of a particular shape and size, which were manufactured by a person approve...

Golden Iron and Steel Forging Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(63)ECC627

1. The appeal is directed against the impugned order captioned above passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Appellant imported a consignment of second-hand single spindle automats from U.K.and declared a value for assessment @ Sterling 9850 C.I.F.. The goods, being second-hand, were examined before assessing to duty and it would appear that the Shed Appriser who examined the goods was of the opinion that the machines have to be assessed at an enhanced value, which he fixed at Rs. 5,90,563/- as against the value declared by the Appellant as . 4,64,991/-. After paying duty on such enhanced value, the Appellant preferred an appeal against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry before the Collector (Appeals) who has passed the impugned order holding that the Appellant ought to have obtained speaking order for the enhanced assessable value from the; Assistant Collector of Customs and in the absence of any contention as to how the value determined by the Custom House is...

Sriram Kapur Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1991-92 is directed against the order of the CIT(A), confirming disallowance of liabilities claimed at Rs. 24,31,431.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the assessee submitted a return of wealth for the asst. yr. 1991-92 disclosing net wealth of Rs. 10,78,700. In the aforesaid declared wealth the assessee had claimed liabilities of Rs. 24,31,431. The AO proceeded ex parte against the assessee under s. 16(5) of the WT Act and disallowed the liability claimed in the absence of proof of liabilities.3. The assessee impugned the above assessment in appeal before the CWT(A), but remained unsuccessful. The learned CWT(A) confirmed the order of the AO with the following remarks : "6. The appeal was last heard on 26th March, 1997. I pointed out to the appellant's C.A. that no details of liabilities have been submitted. I further pointed out to him that such details would constitute fresh evidence because the assessment was completed...

Jhonson Electric Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT795Tri(Mum.)bai

1. M/s. Jhonson Electric Company, Vadodara has preferred the appeal against the impugned order captioned above, praying for setting aside the same.1. The facts of the case are that the appellant firm manufacture Electric Transformers classified under Tariff Item 68 till 28-2-1986 and thereafter under SH 8534.00 under the New Act under the Central Excise L4 licence No. 68/75. The procedure under Rule 56C was followed for sending the inputs to job workers for processing till 1-3-1986 and then opted for the Modvat credit procedure. For processing to be done by the job workers on certain inputs received under Modvat, the appellant applied for permission under Rule 57F(2) to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda on 3-4-1986. But the permission was granted only on 18-3-1987 inspite of repeated reminders. As it was essential and urgent to send the inputs for process in order to meet the export order as well as urgent orders for supply of transformers within specific time, the app...

Raj Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT851Tri(Mum.)bai

1. These appeals arise out of a common order dated 4-12-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The brief facts are that the appellants herein imported 21 consignments of goods described as office machines/staplers/packing machines and ''riled Bills of Entry for their clearance which were passed by the Assistant Collector in January 1981, June 1981, July 1982 and August 1982 in the Bombay Custom House. The Assistant Collector of Customs allowed clearance of these consignments against Additional licences produced by the appellants which were valid for import of non OGL capital goods mentioned in Appendix 2 of Import Policy 1980-81. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, in exercise of his powers under Section 129D(2) of Customs Act, 1962 passed orders on 28-12-1982,17-6-1983, and 17-7-1983 directing the Assistant Collector to file appeals before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) to pronounce upon the legality and propriety of the Assistant Collector's orders on the grounds that ...

Arun S. Kaigaonkar Vs. Commissioner of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT943Tri(Mum.)bai

1. In this case, penalty was imposed on the appellant on the finding that the purity of the ornaments as assayed was lower than that was stamped on the ornaments in pursuance of provisions of Section 30 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. The penalty has been imposed under Section 74 of the said Act.2. I have heard Shri Bidkar, the ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. DR for the Revenue.3. Section 74 attracted penalty, where any gold was rendered liable to confiscation on any act of omission or commission of a person. Section 30 required a licensed dealer to stamp every ornament made, manufactured or prepared by him certifying the purity of the gold.Section 71 would enable confiscation of gold where any provisions of the said Act were contravened. The requirement under Section 30 was that of stamping. It is not the case of the department that the ornaments were not stamped. The situation where the purity was lower than that was stamped, was not covered under the pr...

Bherumal Shamandas Vs. Collector of Cus. and Ex. (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2000)(118)ELT399Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellant had received under cover of invoice, dated 6-7-1995 by Union Jewelleries, Dubai, UAE, and consignment consisting of 3840 grams of gold bullion and coin and 1433 grams of assorted gold jewellery.There is no dispute with regard to the clearance of the gold bullion which was permitted to be cleared against the import licence produced.The Customs took the view that gold jewellery was consumer goods import of which was prohibited by the import policy in force. The appellant contended that the jewellery has been supplied by mistake and asked for re-export. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) whose order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) refused to permit re-export and ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed the penalty on the importer. Hence the appeal.2. The advocate for the appellant does not challenge the liability for confiscation of the jewellery. He seeks re-export on the ground of wrong supply. Letters dated 13-7-1995 of the importer to the Cus...

M/S. Iflex Oild and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd Vs. the Official Liquidator and ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(1)BomCR259; [1999]96CompCas386(Bom)

ORDERF.I. Rebello, J.1. The applicant herein by the present application has sought a declaration that the respondent M/s. Dhake Dyes & Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. (In Liquidation) through the Official Liquidator has no claim whatsoever on the factory premises situated at Plot No. 22/2, Roha industrial Area, Village Dhatav, Taluka Roha, District Raigad, admeasuring 12152 sq. mtrs. In support of their application, it is the contention of the applicant that an advertisement appeared at the behest of Maharashtra State Financial Corporation (M.S.F.C.) in the Times of India dated 13th December, 1993. Their offer in an amount of Rs. 80 lacs was accepted on 16th February, 1994. On 27th June, 1994 possession was handed over to the applicant. On 23rd September, 1994 conveyance was executed in favour of the applicant by the M.S.F.C.On 19th June, 1991, a petition for winding up of the Company was presented before this Court. On 22nd April 1998 an order was passed to wind up the company based on the suo mot...

The Goa Foundation and Another Vs. the Conservator of Forests and Othe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1999(2)BomCR695

ORDERR.K. Batta, J.1. The petitioners are a registered society and are working in the field of environment with the object to maintain ecological balance. The petitioners are public spirited body and for the purpose of preservation of environment have approached this Court by way of this petition. The petitioners challenge the developmental activity being carried out by respondent No. 9 Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., in Survey No. 69/4 of village Penha de Franca of Bardez Taluka and seek to challenge various permissions granted for the said developmental activity which is contrary to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, (hereinafter called F.C.A. 1980).2. The petitioners' case is that Survey No. 69/4 is 'forest' and non-forest activity therein is not permissible unless prior permission is taken from the Central Government under the F.C.A. 1980. The petitioners also challenge alteration of Survey No. 69/4 from A-1 (Agricultural and Orchard (Natural Reserve) Zone an...